Mobil 1 0W-16

[nap]

Originally Posted By: kschachn

So the supposed sludge issue with my old 1MZ-FE was due to the oil that was available in 1999, not the engine design?


The oils of the day failed to provide the real world performance expected in the engines design. And the manufacturers were reluctant to backspec an oil that didn’t have API / ILSAC / EPA / CAFE blessings.

They tried to fix it at oil level by refining the API specs/tests, if you check here you’ll notice how SG SH SJ were shortly lived:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/devilsindisguise.htm

and here you’ll notice SF and SG cited for sludge and other ailments:

https://www.api.org/~/media/files/certification/engine-oil-diesel/publications/mom_guide_english_2013.pdf

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Spector
2018 Camry's have 0W16 as the oil listed in the owner's manual


By 2021 we’ll have some idea on how it worked out.

 

[nap]

Just checked the Camry’s manual. API SJ / Resource Conserving 5W30 “ preffered”. No xW40 in sight. Also on previous page they say about 87 octane minimum with 91 or higher preffered.

Now guess whether some of these engines were having a diet of cheap gas and some SF/SG oil from the stash bought on clearance? changed whenever? or maybe some newly introduced SJ that passed the API lab tests but haven’t yet been proved in the field? add ethanol, PCV and EGR and you’re all set up.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Spector
2018 Camry's have 0W16 as the oil listed in the owner's manual


By 2021 we’ll have some idea on how it worked out.

Yep, about then. We'll also know if they changed the spec to something else because of issues, or if the oil is the perfect brew.

 

[NH73]

I remember someone showing that the TGMO 0w20 was pretty thin compared to other 0w20 out there. How would TGMO 0w20 compare with Mobil 1 0w16?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: NH73
I remember someone showing that the TGMO 0w20 was pretty thin compared to other 0w20 out there. How would TGMO 0w20 compare with Mobil 1 0w16?




Interesting question since Mobil makes the TGMO.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: nap
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44644552?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Same HTHS as ACEA A3/B4 specs.

Coincidence?

Do you have anything more recent? A lot has changed in 41 years.

Like which law of physics?

According to the measured mass of the Higgs boson, the laws of physics may change as the cosmological constant evolves, eventually the universe collapsing back into a singularity and then the Big Bang repeating.

Nevertheless, both the engines and oils have changed a lot since 1977. The paper says that they looked at a single engine. Does that particular engine apply to any modern engine? Probably not.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: NH73
I remember someone showing that the TGMO 0w20 was pretty thin compared to other 0w20 out there. How would TGMO 0w20 compare with Mobil 1 0w16?

Not really. TGMO HTHSV = 2.6 cP, which is pretty standard for a 0W-20. M1 AFE and EP HTHSV = 2.7 cP and M1 AP HTHSV = 2.6 cP.

ExxonMobil TGMO 0W-20 is 100% Group III. Mobil Super 0W-16 is 100% GTL. M1 0W-16 is about 90% PAO and 10% GTL. Therefore, all three are entirely different.

ExxonMobil Nissan Genuine Oil (NGO) 0W-20 is 100% GTL.

ExxonMobil also makes the TGMO 0W-16 but for some reason there is no MSDS for it. I suspect that it's GTL.

TGMO 0W-20 is unusual in that it has more VII than typical for a 0W-20, making its VI ~ 230 - 240, which is very high. Its KV100 is nearly SAE 30 but its high VII content puts its HTHSV at the 2.6 cP lower limit for SAE 20. It has A_Harman index ~ 0.81 - 0.84, which is more like for a synthetic heavy xW-30 (like M1 HM 5W-30) or a synthetic xW-40.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: NH73
I remember someone showing that the TGMO 0w20 was pretty thin compared to other 0w20 out there. How would TGMO 0w20 compare with Mobil 1 0w16?
You asked this same question in another thread. I answered it there.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan


Nevertheless, both the engines and oils have changed a lot since 1977. The paper says that they looked at a single engine. Does that particular engine apply to any modern engine? Probably not.


Well Galileo it seems you missed the part where they indicated that the study is about the journal / bearing assembly / interface, not about other parts of an engine. It’s right there in the paper’s title if you look hard enough.

If you know of any scientific breaktrough in the study of journal / bearing assemblies since ‘77, please come up with it. Cause they still make them the same way - there weren’t any square ones introduced. And Stribeck’s findings (published cca 1902) are still of actuality.

As for the bosons, I now know where that BOQI index of yours comes from. Boson overload

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan


Nevertheless, both the engines and oils have changed a lot since 1977. The paper says that they looked at a single engine. Does that particular engine apply to any modern engine? Probably not.


Well Galileo it seems you missed the part where they indicated that the study is about the journal / bearing assembly / interface, not about other parts of an engine. It’s right there in the paper’s title if you look hard enough.

If you know of any scientific breaktrough in the study of journal / bearing assemblies since ‘77, please come up with it. Cause they still make them the same way - there weren’t any square ones introduced. And Stribeck’s findings (published cca 1902) are still of actuality.

As for the bosons, I now know where that BOQI index of yours comes from. Boson overload

I’ll take a gander and say that machining methods and modern materials may make better bearing surfaces. Do they use DLC in these areas of the engines? Obviously oils have improved greatly and engines have become more efficient with less friction. Lighter weight materials, etc.

Yes, a lot has changed. Maybe the laws of physics haven’t but the surrounding circumstances have.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: nap
it seems you missed the part where they indicated that the study is about the journal / bearing assembly / interface, not about other parts of an engine. It’s right there in the paper’s title if you look hard enough.

If you know of any scientific breaktrough in the study of journal / bearing assemblies since ‘77, please come up with it. Cause they still make them the same way - there weren’t any square ones introduced. And Stribeck’s findings (published cca 1902) are still of actuality.

You haven't even read the paper because you don't have access. So, you have no idea what was done.

I have access to it and read it:

(1) They used special bearings that is not used in any engine. Basically they are pure aluminum with steel backing without the usual coating of lead/tin etc., which were made with the intention to remove the "inhibiting effect" of the coating. So, the study doesn't directly apply to any real vehicle.

"(Previous studies None of the vehicles encountering bearing failures had experienced difficulty before about 40,000 miles (65,000 km) of service. The bearings used in these cars were steel-backed aluminum (SAE 7817 with a lead - tin (SAE 19) overlay. The function of the overlay was to provide an antiweld surface between the aluminum bearing and the nodular cast iron crankshaft. It was speculated that a necessary condition for failure was operation under conditions which gradually resulted in the removal of the overlay, exposing the more easily damaged aluminum to direct contact with the iron journal.

Engine preparation for test: In an effort to obtain as repeatable a test as possible, several steps were taken to standardize engine buildups. In view of the suspected inhibiting effect of bearing overlays, special bare main bearings were obtained. These bearings were broached by the manufacturer to give an undersized bearing."

(2) For the camshaft bearings, the thinner oils protected the camshafts better than the thicker oils did:

"It has been found in this work, which will be the subject of a later paper, that 100N oil protects cam bearings down to 2.6 cSt in the camshaft test procedure while 2OON fails at temperatures leading to viscosities below 3.0 cSt and 35ON at viscosities below 3.5 cSt. Since these are all IOO VI Newtonian base oils no explanation is readily apparent."

These are three base oils without any viscosity-index improver (VII). 100N has KV100 = 4.5 cSt, 200N has KV100 = 6.9 cSt, and 350N even higher.

(3) Their HTHSV is measured at 300,000 or 700,000 1/second (1/s), not 1,000,000 1/s as today. If they got HTHSV = 3.5 cP, this translates into more like HTHSV = 3.0 cP or lower in today's reporting standards. This pretty makes your initial claim about 3.5 cP meaningless, as that doesn't correspond to today's measurements. So, yes, a lot has changed since 1977!

(4) Here are their main results. Again, their HTHSV is a lot higher than what's reported today as the measurement was done at a lower shear rate -- 300,000 1/s for the Viking and 700,000 1/s for the Roper rigs, as opposed to 1,000,000 1/s for the today's standard. In addition, the early VII's used in these tests don't quite compare to modern VII's.

All these said, you can interpret these results as a modern SAE xW-20 would pass these tests, despite the unusual bearing design.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: nap
The oils of the day failed to provide the real world performance expected in the engines design. And the manufacturers were reluctant to backspec an oil that didn’t have API / ILSAC / EPA / CAFE blessings.

They tried to fix it at oil level by refining the API specs/tests, if you check here you’ll notice how SG SH SJ were shortly lived:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/devilsindisguise.htm

and here you’ll notice SF and SG cited for sludge and other ailments:

https://www.api.org/~/media/files/certification/engine-oil-diesel/publications/mom_guide_english_2013.pdf

Oh I see. I thought the problems were undersized oil return holes on the 4-cylinder engines and excessive head temperatures and an ineffective PCV system on the 6-cylinder? If it were a problem with the oil of the day wouldn’t issues have been more widespread among all manufacturers? I know Chrysler had a problem but what about all the rest?

It seemed the issues were related to identifiable mechanical problems with specific engines.

 

[PimTac]

Good point kschachn. As I remember from that period, the air pollution equipment caused more problems trying to solve the emissions output.

 

[PandaBear]

0w16 is only for engine with variable displacement (or is it volume) oil pump, a completely different design and you shouldn't use it in your older traditional oil pump engine.

If you don't have that kind of engine, don't use it, really. I don't see what's to complain if someone design the engine to work with it from the ground up, and it has been proven in Japan for a few years.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
... I don't see what's to complain if someone design the engine to work with it from the ground up, and it has been proven in Japan for a few years.
Probably true. The protests seem to come from people who cannot grasp that such engines lubricated by 0W-16 may be at no greater risk losing full hydrodynamic lubrication than Grandpa's V-8 was on 10W-40.

 

[bbhero]

I agree PimTac. Really good post by kschachn.

 

[Bullwinkle007]

You guys do realize that this 0/16 water has everything to do with CAFE, Even if I owned a car that this was a recommendation, I would use a 5/30.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Bullwinkle007
You guys do realize that this 0/16 water has everything to do with CAFE, Even if I owned a car that this was a recommendation, I would use a 5/30.


And just like it was mentioned earlier in this thread, 30 years ago everyone cried that 5w30 was water thin and was only a CAFE thing, and engines would die sooner. Funny how that works. 30 years from now when cars are running some new viscosity like 0w5, the "thick oil guys" will be here on BITOG saying they won't run that water thin stuff, they are gonna go with a nice thick 0w16 instead

 

[aquariuscsm]

I can't help but wonder,how thin can you possibly go before adequate hydrodynamic lubrication is compromised? Especially with several manufacturers "re-specing" back up to 5W30. Me,I'll continue to run a 30wt in my 0W20 spec'd Accord,with 10W30 going in next oil change.

When manufacturers spec a certain grade of oil and uses the terminology "for best fuel economy" that tells me it's not for "best protection".